If gay and straight are equal then you can ask what made x heterosexual as much as you can ask what made y homosexual. Until you ask that question and feel you can you do not really regard gays and straights as equals.  What passes for equality is often just gays being an unnoticed notch below the equality afforded to straights.  The evidence does not support religion as being a force for equality.


The true Catholic does not use the word gay. The word is offensive to the Catholic faith.

The true Catholic cannot use the term homosexual.

Maybe the Church needs a new word, homodeviant.

Catholics say that homosexual acts are abnormal. They claim that they are not saying homosexuals are abnormal. They never explain how saying a person is doing an abnormal thing in response to an abnormal aspect of their nature is not as good as saying the person is abnormal. That is because they can’t or don’t know how to. Their words are hollow.

If they mean the abnormality is only a small part of the person, so we should not call the person abnormal they are being hypocrites. They can call the person abnormal without meaning there is nothing else to him. Also, anybody called abnormal does not care if it is a part of them that is being referred to or not. They are offended that the word is applied to them at all.

Anyway suppose you regard acts of great evil as abnormal. It is the fact that the bad person has so much good in them and could be so much better that makes them evil. The Church is just trying to whitewash over its venom.


Society may say that the Church has the right to criticise homosexuality just as homosexuals have the right to criticise the Church and even its most sacred doctrines. Society says that if either Catholics or gay people start inciting violence the law should stop them and silence them. But even homosexuals can criticise homosexuality. Like heterosexuality, homosexuality can be imperfect. Criticising homosexuality is fine but the Church does more than that. It condemns it. Condemns means it refuses to acknowledge any good in it. You condemn the crimes of Jack the Ripper. You don’t say the good side of it was that the streets were cleared of five women who were spreading venereal disease. I bring this up to shock you to see how far you are going when you say you condemn something. Condemn means you attack the good with the bad in an action. It is therefore an act of hatred.

If it is true that we are to be reluctant to judge people, then surely if a religious person beats up a gay person we should see that person as an instrument of divine justice?


To say homosexuality is unnatural would imply that it is not a once off choice that makes you gay. You must put up resistance to your true nature. Thus the inclination is a sin.

Sin means that which offends God or would hurt him if it could. Sin always includes a wish to inflict some injury for violence on another. It cries out for punishment. Suppose you accuse yourself of being a sinner to a Catholic. The Catholic has to accept this accusation. This results in a wish to see you punished. There is therefore a violent urge in anybody who holds that homosexuals are sinners. The urge is being fed albeit it may never be fed enough to make the Catholic go out and start gay-bashing.

The only true homophobia is condemning homosexuality as wrong in itself. The vast majority of the homophobes condemn homosexuality because they think it is harmful, loveless or that gay people tend to disrespect themselves and others. If you said that gay relationships are never loving you will be classed as a homophobe. But to say such acts are wrong in themselves is far far worse.

They say that God’s law is a law of love and justice. All laws claim to be of this nature. When the law used to execute murderers, this was said to be the fairest and most loving thing to do under the circumstance despite it being bad for the executed. Gay Christians say that because God’s law is love that means they are allowed to make love as gay people do. This really denies God’s authority to legislate. Law is not about love and justice but about authority making requirements that take love and justice into consideration.

If a man met a woman he considered beautiful and slept with her, and then saw her without her make-up and decided he despised her and wanted rid of her, the Church would say that he is not a nice person and she is better off without him. The Church would say that he should see there is more to a woman than beauty. This argument suggests that gay people are not going for partners who psychologically complement them and who are emotionally good for them. They go for partners based on the kind of body they have. But don’t heterosexual men and women do the same?

The Roman Church argues that God will punish all unrepented sin. But there are four sins which cry to God for vengeance - they try to provoke him. They are then necessarily sins of self-destruction. One of those sins is sodomy - having unnatural sex with another person. Sodomy most often refers to anal sex between gay men. What if the sin is not intentional? The Church says that if you do something forbidden without knowing it is evil, you do a grave evil yes but you are not intentionally evil or sinful thus you will not be punished. Evil results will follow but they are not punishment. Suppose the claims about sodomy are true. Suppose it is calling down evil and suffering - even when it is not meant to provoke God. The sodomite cannot say he doesn't intend to do evil. It would follow that the sin is always intentional. The gossip may tell herself that her evil is unintentional but she is aware of the consequences of her chatter so she cannot expect us to think she is not intentionally evil.


The Church says we must love the sinner and hate - that is not tolerate - their sin. The true Catholic cannot rest if the law legalises homosexuality.

When somebody comes out as gay, people say they accept it because they are still the same person.

The Church says that public profession of homosexuality ie coming out is a sin. It claims to worry that this is the sin of scandal and a bad influence on teenagers growing up and can mislead them to think they are gay or to even become gay.

Sin is a perversion of holiness and goodness. So clearly homosexuality would be one of the worst sins for the Church sees it as distorting true sexuality.

Catholics should have a problem with people who argue that gay people are not to be judged but who then judge those who persecute them or beat them up. That is a hidden way of indicating that gay people should get a special exemption from being judged. In reality they are being judged but it is pretended that they are not.

The Church teaches that we have an inbuilt aversion to same sex relationships. To be crude, it is called the “Yuck Factor”. thus to declare oneself gay and to declare that one is having gay sexual relationships is disrespectful to the heterosexual tendency

To condemn homosexuals is to condemn people. To condemn Catholicism is to condemn the ideas that comprise Catholicism. Surely this contradicts the fact that the command love the wrongdoer and hate the wrong they have done is impossible? No. Homosexuality is not an idea. Religion is. You can despise somebody's ideas without despising the person.

The Church criticises homosexuality on the basis of natural law. This doctrine says that certain actions are bad in themselves and says that homosexual acts are an example of that.

We must remember too that if somebody goes insane and wishes to kill gay people, his or her warped conscience makes it an obligation to go and do so. Church teaching on the duty to follow one's conscience infers as much.

The Church claims the right to have God's authority to speak for him. He speaks through the Church and says homosexuality is bad and will be punished by him.

It can only have this right if God really has given it authority. If it is a mere man-made religion based on human authority that only imagines it has God's backing and sanction then it does not have the right.

Human rights activists might say that the Church simply has the right to make such a claim. But that makes no sense. What about God's right - if he exists - to command that nobody speaks a word he didn't tell them to speak? And if the Church has the right to speak for God when it has no business doing so then why stop the lunatic who persuades his disciples to commit suicide for the Devil is about to take the whole world to Hell forever?

The Church says that the Catholic cannot take it upon themselves to speak for the pope without asking him. By implication, the Church is saying that if it is not God's only voice on earth then it has no right to claim to be.

Gay Catholics by the way have no right to say that one can be a good Catholic and a practicing homosexual for it is not their place to say that. They are not the head of the Church.

They wouldn't say you can be a good teacher and ignore the curriculum to make up your own.

Hypocrisy is not going to win fans for the LGBT cause.


Many Catholics disobey the Church gravely and are in say gay relationships and feel happy and spiritually fulfilled. They argue that they feel too happy for it to be a sin and they say they could swear they feel God’s presence with them. They argue from their feelings that the Church is wrong. But the Vatican answers that it is precisely this feeling that one is right that keeps one in Hell forever! If the damned didn’t somehow feel they were free and they were in the right they wouldn’t be able to freely stay in Hell forever. In this view, the good feelings are far more dangerous than doing wrong while feeling bad about it.

The Church forbids contraception but allows married couples to use the natural method of birth regulation in order to space out their children and plan their families. It is only a permission not an encouragement. The natural method is understood only as having sex when conception is possible but unlikely so it is open to life.

A truly good person will take health conditions, monetary conditions and emotional conditions into account before having a child. The person will not want to bring a child into the world to suffer illness or poverty. Yet the Roman Catholic Church in its evil Catechism of the Catholic Church (2368, 2370, 2399) is clear that responsibly regulating birth is morally neutral ie neither worthy of condemnation or praise.

2368 "A particular aspect of this responsibility concerns the regulation of procreation. For just reasons, spouses may wish to space the births of their children. It is their duty to make certain that their desire is not motivated by selfishness but is in conformity with the generosity appropriate to responsible parenthood. Moreover, they should conform their behavior to the objective criteria of morality".

2370 "Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality." It only says they conform with moral principles not that they are moral as such. The Church says that applying for a job in firm A conforms with moral principles but that does not mean you are immoral if you do not apply.

The thrust of this here is that couples who have good reasons to try and space out births may not must try birth regulation. The only duty mentioned is not to be selfish.

How twisted is that? You don't deserve praise for caring enough to try and reduce the chance of a child coming into the world to a crap life! The maturity of the parent who takes some responsibility is being insulted. Also, to say something is not worthy of blame or reward is to actually say it deserves both! It's just that one cancels the other out. So it is half hatred for the person who has a sense of duty as a parent.

If married people are viewed with such contempt imagine what this implies about the Church's view of gay couples?

2388 Incest designates intimate relations between relatives or in-laws within a degree that prohibits marriage between them. St. Paul stigmatizes this especially grave offense: “It is actually reported that there is immorality among you . . . for a man is living with his father's wife.... In the name of the Lord Jesus ... you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh....” Incest corrupts family relationships and marks a regression toward animality.

The Church in its Catechism is delighted with the severity meted out by a saint to a man who was merely having a relationship with his step-mother and sees him as turning into an animal. Imagine how it must feel about a man having a relationship with a man?


Katie Hopkins feels that gay people who get HIV should be put in second place for treatment as those who are sick through no fault of their own come first according to a 2016 article.  As vile as her attitude is, remember it is Catholic teaching that God has attached bad consequences to sin. The Church says sin punishes you itself. The Catholic teaching is that many of those gay men are to blame for their HIV. The implication is that they should not be given help equally with people who have conditions that just happen. I admire her candour what you see is what you get. Christianity needs to be as outspoken so that we may see its true homophobic colours. Even worse is the fact that Catholicism would rid the world of condoms if it could ... Hopkins is not the only enemy. Catholicism is clear that contraception is not just wrong for Catholics it is objectively wrong and nobody has the right to ask politicians to let it happen.


Fr Martin is famous for helping the Catholic Church form "good" relations with the LGBT community.

James, you are not building bridges. The Christian faith like Mormonism is based on man mistaking his word for God's.

The Catholic Church excludes gay couples from the sacrament of marriage and goes as far as to argue that civil weddings involving heterosexual couples never mind gay couples are invalid - they are called a lie. Supporting a manmade religion and manmade worship that condemns gay sex not only as immoral but as seriously evil and a call to God to let you to go to eternal damnation is the problem. If I collude in religious deception that excludes people or grants them less rights and protections I cannot call my sucking up to the victims bridge building. You are a manipulator.

It is not only LGBT but people who believe in committment without marriage people who accept abortion rights Protestants and unbaptised people who are insulted by the Catholic system.

You have no right going around looking for forgiveness for a faith that has embraced the evil God of the Old Testament as the real deal though he had innocent gay men stoned to death. You have no right to honour a Jesus who knew that Moses endorsed such commands and who honoured Moses more than his own mother and who refused to admit in Matthew 5 that the commands of Moses law were in any way bad or evil. You have no right to suggest that gay men who are happy with the gay lifestyle and don't want to be anything other than single are doing anything wrong. You cannot ask people to forgive a faith that has committed thousands of years of evil against gay people. If people are willing to forgive all that and insult those of us who do not believe the Church can or should be forgiven then the religion as presented by people like yourself is a placebo for evil. It is not their place to forgive the Church for what was done to people whose suffering they will never understand.

Just go away - you and your populist politican style.

LGBT "Catholics" are really looking for the Church to change for the Church has an affect on politics and is political. Decency would demand they forget that and support a truly decent religion.


Catholicism is homophobia of the worst kind. It masks it in love to allow it to fester and to empower it.


No Copyright